ReviewMolecular diagnosis & therapy2017
The Utility of Biomarkers in Osteoporosis Management.
Review in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Guidelines for the management of osteoporosis and fragility fractures.Internal and emergency medicine · 2019Guideline
- Trial
- Effect of physical therapy on bone remodelling in preterm infants: a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC pediatrics · 2022Trial
- Increased Bone Resorption during Lactation in Pycnodysostosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Trial
- Assessing P1NP/β-CTX as Potential Risk Factors Associated With Different Subtypes of Fragile Hip Fracture in Elderly Patients.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- The Association of Bone-related Biomarkers With Incident Hip Fracture: A Nested Case-control Study.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2025Article
- Examining the Effects of Quercetin on Phenotypic Characteristics of Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells.Cellular and molecular bioengineering · 2025Article
- Effect of Allele-Specific Clcn7Calcified tissue international · 2024Article
- Article
- Clinical use of bone markers: a challenge to variability.Advances in laboratory medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Enhancing the Predictive Utility of MHR for Senile Osteoporosis: Unaddressed Considerations and Future Directions [Letter].Clinical interventions in aging · 2024Article
- Regulation of the Osteocyte Secretome with Aging and Disease.Calcified tissue international · 2023Review
- Periostin in Osteoporosis and Cardiovascular Disease.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2023Review
- Metabolome-Wide Mendelian Randomization Assessing the Causal Relationship Between Blood Metabolites and Bone Mineral Density.Calcified tissue international · 2023Article
- Circulating Osteogenic Progenitor Cells Enhanced with Teriparatide or Denosumab Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Analysis of Serum Proteome after Treatment of Osteoporosis with Anabolic or Antiresorptive Drugs.Metabolites · 2022Article
- Management of patients at very high risk of osteoporotic fractures through sequential treatments.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The measurement of bone turnover markers is useful for the clinical investigation of patients with osteoporosis. Among the available biochemical markers, the measurements of serum procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (PINP) and the crosslinked C-terminal telopeptide (serum CTX) have been recommended as reference markers of bone formation and bone resorption, respectively. The important sources of preanalytical and analytical variability have been identified for both markers, and precise measurement can now be obtained. Reference interval data for PINP and CTX have been generated across different geographical locations, which allows optimum clinical interpretation. However, conventional protein-based markers have some limitations, including a lack of specificity for bone tissue, and their inability to reflect osteocyte activity or periosteal metabolism. Thus, novel markers such as periostin, sclerostin and, sphingosine 1-phosphate have been developed to address some of these shortcomings. Recent studies suggest that the measurements of circulating microRNAs, a new class of marker, may represent early biological markers in osteoporosis. Bone markers have been shown to be a useful adjunct to bone mineral density for identifying postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture. Because levels of bone markers respond rapidly to both anabolic and anticatabolic drugs, they are very useful for investigating the mechanism of action of new therapies and, potentially, for predicting their efficacy to reduce fracture risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28271451What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.